USPTO Examiner Rejected 1-Click Claims As "Obvious"

theodp writes "Faced with a duly unimpressed USPTO examiner who rejected its new 1-Click patent claims as 'obvious' and 'old and well known,' Amazon has taken the unusual step of requesting an Oral Appeal to plead its case. And in what might be interpreted by some as an old-fashioned stalling tactic, the e-tailer has also canceled and refiled its 1-Click claims in a continuation application. As it touted the novelty of 1-Click to Congress last spring, Amazon kept the examiner's rejection under its hat, insisting that 'still no [1-Click] prior art has surfaced.' The Judiciary Committee hearing this testimony included Rick Boucher (VA) and Howard Berman (CA), both recipients of campaign contributions from a PAC funded by 1-Click inventor Jeff Bezos, other Amazon execs, and their families."

Comments

Oral appeal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oral appeal" sounds so...slutty!

I never understood why they call these things "oral." "Oral report," "oral appeal."
Shouldn't it be "vocal?"

Re:I remember hearing about the 1 click patent

[heinousjay]

...and the fox turned as he walked away, muttering "damn grapes were probably sour anyway."

Oral Appeal?

[johnny cashed]

Mr. Examiner,

I'd like to introduce you to our spokeslawyer, Heidi. She is ready to meet with you for her oral appeal.

Re:wtf?

[Bloke down the pub]

You want prior art for 1 click? What about those old-style vending machines - you only had to press the button once to get the chocolate bar or can of soda. I say old-style because the new ones need 98 keypresses and a working knowledge of XML to get anything out of them. I guess that's progress.